Interrelationship among human capital, structural capital and relational capital in the intellectual capital and their effects on performance of Thai private universities

Abstract

Today global transforming into a knowledge-based economymore rapidly even in the developing countries, the major role of intellectual capital (comprise of human capital, structural capital and relational capital) that effects and impacts on performance and sustainability in every organization is becoming more and more prominent. It is represented and promoted as the organization's most valuable resource for establishing the sustainable business and organization’s wealth; also it is recognized as the most important source of organizations' competitive advantage in bloody business world. Many researchers also agree and approve that intellectual capital is “knowledge” and “experience” that directly contribute to every organization’s bottom line, as well as mainly contribute to an organization’s survivability and sustainability. Intellectual capital comprises of knowledge and competencies that residing with the organization’s employees. Most IC researches have been conducted in a variety of international settings such as the UK, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, Austria, Malaysia, the USA, and Ireland, South Africa, Egypt, Taiwan, Portugal, and Jordan. However, no empirical research has been conducted at the organizational level in the field of IC in Thai educational sector. The purpose of this empirical study is to emphasize the importance of intellectual capital, particularly at this time in terms of our current economic business environment. The main objective of this study is to explore the interrelationship among three components of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital and relational capital) and their effects on performance within the private educational institutions of Thailand. Model development and hypothesis testing was conducted using path analysis on a sample of 131 respondents from 19 Thai private universities. Results demonstrate a confirmation of previous studies as it relates to hypothesis testing but a difference in psychometric item evaluation given the distinctive geographical and sector context. Recommendations are then made for both researchers and practitioners.